1 2025:CGHC:27301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5815 of 2025 1 - Chamru Ram S/o Sonuram Aged About 64 Years R/o Kamaras Jagargunda, District Sukuma (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Sukuma Division, District Sukuma (C.G.) 7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.25 14:35:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter pertains to Sukuma district and he has correctly mentioned the name of district in the writ petition as District Sukuma, and there is no default in the matter. 2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the default pointed out by the Registry is waived. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the respondents’ Departments and was working as Work Charged Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has completed the minimum service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondents/competent authority 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment passed in that case expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the said representation. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved